01-23-2008, 09:06 AM
Hi Ewan :lol:
Only making a point, don't worry. :wink:
The page has been updated by the author - but Giannis is mistaken. I am told Manning have improved the build (the original was too heavy and even Craig Sitch said as much I am told - it is the one our member has). I understand they now build to the 'turned plank' style - which has integrity in the shallow bowl but we suspect if they went for a deeper bowl it would not be as good.
Shallow bowls are, I believe, are seen as earlier style shields. Deeper bowls are thought to be later (5th C - as in the period The Hoplite Association re-enact - 490 to 430BC).
"Most accurate production refers", I think, to the wood being poplar (which is another word for pine isn't it??) and built with straight planks which, by its nature, causes a weakness at the two ends. This might well be right (it is conjecture) but is it not 'desirable' as a reenactment shield - so Giannis is crossing terms.
If you want some more details etc.... send me a PM.
Ferox
Only making a point, don't worry. :wink:
The page has been updated by the author - but Giannis is mistaken. I am told Manning have improved the build (the original was too heavy and even Craig Sitch said as much I am told - it is the one our member has). I understand they now build to the 'turned plank' style - which has integrity in the shallow bowl but we suspect if they went for a deeper bowl it would not be as good.
Shallow bowls are, I believe, are seen as earlier style shields. Deeper bowls are thought to be later (5th C - as in the period The Hoplite Association re-enact - 490 to 430BC).
"Most accurate production refers", I think, to the wood being poplar (which is another word for pine isn't it??) and built with straight planks which, by its nature, causes a weakness at the two ends. This might well be right (it is conjecture) but is it not 'desirable' as a reenactment shield - so Giannis is crossing terms.
If you want some more details etc.... send me a PM.
Ferox
Noli Nothis permittere te terere!!
Mark.
Mark.